Is Length Contraction in SR physical??
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Simultaneous events and Einstein's absolute time
Next: New Theory --- The Theory of Quantum Wave Sources
From: Ste on 8 Feb 2010 09:10 On 8 Feb, 13:38, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 8:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8 Feb, 12:36, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 7:27 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Indeed, but in any event that remains to be experimentally verified > > > > and physically explained. > > > > The physical explanation is the Minkowskian geometry of spacetime > > > which you have only ruled out because you don't like it. > > > Minkowski spacetime is a *mathematical* explanation, not a physical > > one. I dare say that a physical model can be built and explained with > > plasticine, without any recourse to maths to explain the conceptual > > foundations. > > The geometry of the universe is the explanation, just like how the > geometry for the universe is the explanation for why a ladder gets > shorter in the x direction if you rotate it. There's nothing more to > it than that. If you think there's more to a ladder getting shorter > when you rotate it, I'd love to hear your *physical* explanation for > why a ladder gets shorter when you rotate it. Indeed. The physical explanation for "why a ladder gets shorter when you rotate it spatially" is that it apparently *doesn't* get shorter. Experience suggests that the ladder remains the same physical length no matter what orientation it takes in space. The problem only arises when you try to quantify the length of the ladder geometrically, at which point it's measured length appears to change with orientation relative to different axes. But the point is that geometry was devised to describe the real world mathematically. It did not happen the other way around, where the real world was devised to allow geometry to work. The fact is that any mathematical model must appeal to physical reality in some way or another. > > > Regardless, you can't even have modified length contractions and claim > > > that your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR. To be > > > equivalent, your theory must reproduce the exact same length > > > contractions that SR predicts. > > > To be honest, I'm not really that concerned about what is > > mathematically predicted. I'm more interested in ascertaining the > > physical explanation for the phenomena in SR, and as yet I have not > > really turned my mind to the question of how length contraction, if > > indeed it exists, could occur. > > If you come up with an explanation but it predicts a different length > than SR predicts, then you have not given a physical explanation for > SR. You have given a physical explanation for something else. It doesn't really matter. You seem to be placing a great deal of strain on whether what I'm predicting correlates with the predictions of SR. My argument is that what I'm predicting correlates with all observed effects of SR, and reserves judgment for now on the unobserved effects. And as I said, my main concern is to clarify the physical basis of relativistic effects, and certainly the prevalent interpretation of SR at the moment, where 'c' is in some way physically constant in all reference frames is, obviously, not physically possible - and so the challenge is to explain and clarify why it may be *measured* to be constant, while in fact not being physically constant at all.
From: Ste on 8 Feb 2010 09:10 On 8 Feb, 12:49, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 7:46 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > We seem to be getting somewhere now. I can basically understand the > > principle of how that carries out a detection. Now, do you have any > > data that plots detections and velocities, at different speeds? > > > ________________________ > > > "Plots velocities at different speeds"! > > > ROFL! > > Yeah, I chose not to comment on that, but I noticed it as well. Because you're a pair of pillocks.
From: Ste on 8 Feb 2010 09:10 On 8 Feb, 12:46, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > We seem to be getting somewhere now. I can basically understand the > principle of how that carries out a detection. Now, do you have any > data that plots detections and velocities, at different speeds? > > ________________________ > > "Plots velocities at different speeds"! > > ROFL! The velocities of the decay products for different impact speeds, you pillock! > The explanation of how the detector works actually explains how energy and > direction are determined for several different particle types and classes. > And *none* of it relies on shining beams of light at the particles. I never said it did. But in the case of tauons, it does depend on measuring the velocities of decay products, so I want to know what those velocities are, and how they change with speed. > And what the details of detector designs has to do with your disbelief in SR > is a bit of a mystery to me. In the face of overwhelming evidence that SR > does work, as witnessed by the fact that it is used every day in every > particle accelerator in the world, the best objection you can come up with > is that all the particle detectors might be built wrong? I'm merely repeating what many other authorities have said, which is that length contraction has never been experimentally observed.
From: mpalenik on 8 Feb 2010 09:22 On Feb 8, 9:10 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Feb, 12:46, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > We seem to be getting somewhere now. I can basically understand the > > principle of how that carries out a detection. Now, do you have any > > data that plots detections and velocities, at different speeds? > > > ________________________ > > > "Plots velocities at different speeds"! > > > ROFL! > > The velocities of the decay products for different impact speeds, you > pillock! > > > The explanation of how the detector works actually explains how energy and > > direction are determined for several different particle types and classes. > > And *none* of it relies on shining beams of light at the particles. > > I never said it did. But in the case of tauons, it does depend on > measuring the velocities of decay products, so I want to know what > those velocities are, and how they change with speed. > Well, you can look up an experimental paper just as well as anyone else. Why is it up to us to find this for you? I wish I had someone to run around getting papers for me when I need them.
From: kenseto on 8 Feb 2010 09:54
On Feb 7, 3:46 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 9:06 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 9:36 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 5, 9:04 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 5 Feb, 15:55, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 4, 8:34 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 5 Feb, 01:12, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 11:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 6:04 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 5:59 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It it does violate the PoR. You made the contradcictory claims that > > > > > > > > > > the pole can fit into the barn physically (materially) an at the same > > > > > > > > > > time you claim that the pole cannot fit into the barn physically > > > > > > > > > > (materially)......that a violation of the PoR. > > > > > > > > > > No. The doors are not closed simultaneously in the pole's frame, nor > > > > > > > > > are the two ends of the pole simultaneously in the barn in the pole's > > > > > > > > > reference frame. In the barn's frame, the two ends of the pole are in > > > > > > > > > the barn simultaneously and the doors shut simultaneously.. In the > > > > > > > > > pole's frame, the two ends of the pole are in the barn at different > > > > > > > > > times and the doors shut at different times. > > > > > > > > > Sigh..You are making the contradictory claims: > > > > > > > > 1. The pole can fit into the barn with both doors close > > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > In the frame of the barn > > > > > > > > > 2. The pole cannot fit into the barn with both doors close > > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > In the frame of the pole > > > > > > > > Two different meanings for 'simultaneously'. So they are not > > > > > > > contradictory > > > > > > > > You really are not very good at thinking or arguing logically.. > > > > > > > He seems perfectly reasonable to me. > > > > > > > He's saying that, if one stands in the middle of the barn equidistant > > > > > > from the doors on each side, and one closes the doors simultaneously > > > > > > (i.e. what I would call "absolutely simultaneously", but which for > > > > > > conveience we'll say "simultaneous according to an observer standing > > > > > > equidistant from each door), then is it possible that both doors can > > > > > > appear closed while the ladder is observed to be inside the barn. > > > > > > > It's a simple question, and the answer is "no!". > > > > > > Your conclusion "no" is in conflict with experimental measurement.. > > > > > When intuition conflicts with experimental measurement, then it is > > > > > intuition that must give way. > > > > > I checked Paul before I gave this answer. Length contraction has never > > > > been experimentally tested. So my intuition does *not* conflict with > > > > experimental evidence.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Length contraction must follow for logical consitancy based on other > > > measurements. If the speed of light is constant in every reference > > > frame, length contraction must necesessarily follow, as we've > > > described it to you. > > > No there is no need for physical length contraction. The physical > > length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames of reference. > > An SR observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > > is the same as the physical length of his meter stick. He uses the SR > > equation to predict the light path length of a meter stick to be > > contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. This agree with the newer SR > > concept that length contraction is a geometric projection effect. > > > Ken Seto > > Your idea that length contraction is merely an optical phenomenon > produces formulas for "length contraction" that are in wild > disagreement with SR. The fact that light has a finite speed and that > you need to account for that when you take measurements was known long > before SR was developed. Length in SR is taken to be the length > *after* you've accounted for the finite speed of light (if you choose > to make your measurements optically). No what I said is equivalent to the current SR interpretation that length contraction in SR is a geometric projection effect. What this mean is that the old interpretation of SR that a moving ruler is physically contracted is no longer valid....BTW the most informed SRian, Tom Roberts, agree with this interpreation. Ken Seto |